If you’re writing about what people do to and with one another, it’s sort of crazy to leave sex out. I think Oscar Wilde said, “Everything in human life is really about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.” And I think he’s got something there.

Michael Cunningham

No one appeared to wonder whether this S-M proliferation was a lesbian copy of a faggot imitation of patriarchal backlash against feminism.

Robin Morgan, “The Politics of Sado-Masochistic Fantasies”

Instead of identifying with a schoolboy of more or less his own age, the reader of the Skipper, Hotspur, etc., is led to identify with a G-man, with a Foreign Legionary, with some variant of Tarzan, with an air ace, a master spy, an explorer, a pugilist — at any rate with some single all-powerful character who dominates everyone about him and whose usual method of solving any problem is a sock on the jaw.

This character is intended as a superman, and as physical strength is the form of power that boys can best understand, he is usually a sort of human gorilla; in the Tarzan type of story he is sometimes actually a giant, eight or ten feet high. At the same time the scenes of violence in nearly all these stories are remarkably harmless and unconvincing. There is a great difference in tone between even the most bloodthirsty English paper and the threepenny Yank Mags, Fight Stories, Action Stories, etc. (not strictly boys’ papers, but largely read by boys). In the Yank Mags you get real blood-lust, really gory descriptions of the all-in, jump-on-his-testicles style fighting, written in a jargon that has been perfected by people who brood end-lessly on violence.

When hatred of Hitler became a major emotion in America, it was interesting to see how promptly ‘anti-Fascism’ was adapted to pornographic purposes by the editors of the Yank Mags. One magazine which I have in front of me is given up to a long, complete story, ‘When Hell Came to America’, in which the agents of a ‘blood-maddened European dictator’ are trying to conquer the U.S.A. with death-rays and invisible aeroplanes. There is the frankest appeal to sadism, scenes in which the Nazis tie bombs to women’s backs and fling them off heights to watch them blown to pieces in mid-air, others in which they tie naked girls together by their hair and prod them with knives to make them dance, etc., etc.

George Orwell, Boys’ weeklies

A year after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the the “neo-conservatives” of the Bush administration were telling Americans that Saddam Hussein, the autocrat of Iraq, was a clear and present danger to the United States. Vice President Dick Cheney said that he had “misspoke” when he suggested that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, but by 2002, a clear majority of Americans were convinced that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were at least involved in some way.

The director of the newly created Department of Homeland Security was telling people to buy plastic sheets and duct tape to seal their windows in case of a “chemical and biological attack” by Iraq or Al Qaeda. No one in the Bush administration claimed that they knew that Saddam Hussein was preparing a chemical and biological attack on “the Homeland” – America – but they never missed a change to imply it. The entire mass media spoke with one voice: the terrorists were already here, on the home front, thus we must be ever vigilant.

In normal times people would have laughed at this. But in 2002, the mass murder of 3,000 people, burned to death in the World Trade Center Towers One, Two – and Seven – in New York City, and the Pentagon in Washington DC, was fresh in everyone’s minds. Both Republicans and Democrats were scrambling to see who could be more of a “hawk” in the “War On Terror.”

By 2002, the United States had been in Afghanistan for a year. It had been quietly – very, very quietly – acknowledged that Osama Bin Laden had “escaped” from Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December of 2001, and CNN had even mused that an “arrangement” had been made as they broadcast Osama Bin Laden’s and Al Qaeda’s caravan of planes flying across the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan. The Pentagon began to downplay Osama bin Laden himself and would announce numerous “Al Qaeda Number Two’s” being captured or killed. The facts of Osama Bin Laden’s “escape” would be discussed in the 2004 Presidential debates between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, but in 2002 to question how the supposed mastermind of 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, had been allowed to fly peacefully into Pakistan despite being surrounded by the US military was still a “conspiracy theory.”

Attention was being diverted away from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda – officially the people blamed for 9/11 – to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The Bush administration claimed that Saddam Hussein had “reconstituted” his “Weapons of Mass Destruction” – the aforementioned chemical and biological weapons – and that he was almost certainly engaged in an attempt to build nuclear weapons.

According to the “neo-conservatives, the United Nations weapons inspectors, led by Hans Blix, were “too liberal” to find Saddam’s “secret weapons facilities” and the United States needed to oust these “liberals” from the weapons inspectors and bring in some more hard-headed types that were not so “liberal.”

It was at this point that the Bush administration leaned on Hans Blix to hire someone hand-picked by the “neo-conservatives” to join the UN inspection team.

But on November 29, 2002, the Washington Post ran an article meant to derail the Bush administration’s new appointment. Among questions of background and expertise, some rather salacious details of this man’s sexual life provided enough of a “hook” to get a boring article about the relative credentials of United Nations appointed bureaucrats broadcast all over the mass media.

Parallel construction is a law enforcement process of building a parallel, or separate, evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to conceal how an investigation actually began. In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer.

This practice gained support after the Supreme Court’s 2009 Herring v. United States decision.

This author started blogging over a decade ago. In an attempt to entertain my audience more thoroughly, in 2013 I wrote a series of posts, accompanied by some grainy photographs, of someone who had been in the news at the time. This was “QAnon drops” before QAnon, inviting the reader to take the hints and “do their own research.”

Most people didn’t know who this person was, and as usual, reading the “mainstream” media has the effect of concealing more than it reveals. But I knew who this person was, and through the wonderful “game theory” tactic of parallel construction, I was able to write with some plausible deniability about our subject.

Since the new Joe Biden administration is, for all practical purposes, the Obama administration with a new figurehead, it’s not surprising that people who were news back in 2013 are again news in 2021.

I was originally banned for my coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell scandal, its ties to “the Intelligence Community” and for naming the names of journalists. Everything was done via parallel construction, nothing relied solely on personal knowledge. But apparently that wasn’t enough.

But each ban just presents a challenge to get around the censorship in more creative ways. What one could only hint at via grainy photographs of uncertain origin is now openly discussed in the mass media, so who is to say it’s not just fiction inspired by the headlines?

Last month, in January of 2021, the Joe Biden administration nominated Avril Haines to become Director of National Intelligence.

This announcement brought back a flood of memories – personal memories – because 25 years ago, Avril Haines and I crossed paths in a way that had a small, but memorable, impact on my life.

While I cannot prove that Avril Haines had a certain connection to the man who would be named by the Bush administration to the United Nations Weapons Inspection team in Iraq before the war, I can certainly speculate that she did. We were all in the same place, at the same time, involved in something seemingly completely non-political but, if you think about it and squint a bit, really is most political. Political in a biological sense. Certainly political in a spiritual sense.

It’s just a story. It’s not really that interesting. But it’s not completely uninteresting. At least it intersects with interesting things.

It’s probably not really “profound” per se, but it is at least illustrative.

Before Trump I was talking about “the Deep State.” Frankly it is all I ever wrote about. There is a lot to be said about “the Deep State” – if it even exists, what its nature is, how it operates. Each country has its own “Deep State” – it’s also likely that some states have more than one, competing “Deep States.”

When I first left the United States, I would drink whiskey and tell my ladyfriend stories about my life. She said she enjoyed it, she got “energy” from it. But she would also express shock at things that, to me, seemed perfectly normal. She would say, “you know, that is not normal.” “Were you some sort of MK-Ultra victim?” “You didn’t think that was significant?”

Who cares, I could be making it all up. In a way, it’s kind of a shaggy dog story. There really is no punchline – well, if there is a punchline, surely the joke is on us – all of us. But I cannot shake the feeling that there is something profound here, something that connects things that otherwise wouldn’t be connected.

Well, in any case:

The 1990’s. Johns Hopkins University. A not-quite-legal Hipster jumps at the chance to attend a party with some “college kids.” My friend, a couple of years older then me, introduces me to a circle of his friends. These people seem sophisticated, fashionable, hip.

I don’t think Avril Haines was technically speaking in the CIA yet, but if you looked into her overseas trips as a college student, it wouldn’t be a surprise. And the fact that my friend’s parents were CIA didn’t mean anything to me. Everybody in DC works for the government in one way or another.

I can assure you, politics was the furthest thing from my mind. At my age, obviously, sex was what was on my mind. I learned a lot about sex that summer. Sex – and power. I don’t think there really is a distinction.

To Be Continued…

Yes boss, I'm on the mic
I'll try to give you what you like
I can be soft - I can be hard
Let me do the B-part, please ... please

Yes, Boss -- Hess Is More